RTR: a concern about The Story of the Middle Ages

[Aimee]

I have been so excited about CTC this year as three of our sons have enjoyed it, and was really looking forward to another year of HOD learning with RTR next year. However, I was able to peruse some of the books scheduled in RTR, and have a serious concern about content in the Story of the Middle Ages. In prereading chapter one, my first alarm went off when I read about how the Germans "were willing and able to learn from other peoples, and to change their customs to suit new circumstances." It went on, "Other races, like the American Indians, who did not learn so readily, have declined and died away when they have been brought into contact with a higher civilization."

I found this portrayal of a people group who have been decimated by those of European descent to be shockingly unkind and arrogant. I know this is dated and the POV common at that time, but no heads-up for discussion? I read on and in the next chapter became convinced I cannot use this book. The Huns are described as not being part of the "great Aryan family of nations, and indeed, the Germans and Romans thought that they were scarcely human at all. They were related to the Chinese; and their strange features and customs, and their shrill voices, were new to Europe." The story goes on to recount an old Gothic writer's depiction of the reason for the Hun's victories. Apparently the fights were not fair, as the other nations "fled in horror from those frightful faces, if indeed, I may call them faces; for they are nothing but shapeless black pieces of flesh, with little points instead of eyes." And it goes on.

As a parent of three Asian sons, I thank God that I preread this book before I handed it to them, and that they will not have burned into their hearts this awful description of Asian facial features. Do I sound upset? Yes, I am. I know that some curriculum providers include dated or difficult material, but there is usually a heads-up given if the materials do not hold to the views of the curriculum designers. I hope in my heart that the kind folks at HOD do not indeed subscribe to these views, but I am at a loss as to why this book was chosen, and why no warning is given to parents. I do not feel I can expose my children to this, and as I can't preread each book before purchasing, this leaves me feeling I can't use this curriculum at all. I am sorry to post this here, being as upset as I am, but I wanted others who might have children of different descents to have a heads-up about this, and I am interested to hear whether this was considered at all in choosing HOD materials.

[deltagal]

Hi Aimee,

Would you point me to the pages you're reading? At first glance, I could not find those references in my copy. I know there are several versions of this book, but I don't know how much they vary.

Thanks so much.

[Aimee]

The first I mentioned was on page 12; the second was on pages 16-17. This version was purchased through HOD by a friend so I believe it's the version intended to be used with RTR.

[blessedmomof4]

Hi Aimee,
I read the pages you mentioned. I am the parent of 4 half-Asian children. To me, when I read the rest of p 17, the "frightfulness" of the faces of the Huns had more to do with the disfiguring practice of applying hot irons to their faces as infants, which left deep scarring on their cheeks-it is also written in the context of the point of view of the non-Asians encountering them for the first time, to whom hairless faces and differently shaped eyes, coupled with disfiguring scars would indeed appear "frightful". I personally find that it will provide opportunity for me to discuss with my dd when I get to RTR, and did not feel it was offensive to me in the given context. As for the passage on page 12, I did not like the wording of calling civilizations other than American Indians as "higher". But again I take it within the context of when this was written. I look at it the way I look at a work of literature such as Tom Sawyer-it uses negative terms referring to African Americans, but I am not offended, though I am part African American-it is just how the story is told because of when it was written. For me, I will simply discuss that fact with my dd when we get there. I haven't gotten an RTR guide yet, but I would like to think that whatever history activity is scheduled for the days those pages are assigned is as good as I have always encountered so far at directing thoughtful interaction with the text. Also, Carrie does skip or warn about passages that may be difficult, offensive, or upsetting to sensitive readers right in the HOD guide whenever it comes up, though I cannot say about these pages as I don't have the RTR guide yet. I am convinced that Carrie does her utmost to carefully choose and selectively use each and every book in HOD's guides. I hope that someone with the RTR guide can see when and if those pages are used, and how, or that Carrie or Julie may have a moment to respond to your very valid concern.

[Aimee]

Good morning;

Having slept on this, I first want to apologize for posting such a strong reaction; the mama bear in me came out on behalf of my kiddos. I believe that Carrie does put a great deal of thought and prayer into what we have found to be a lovely curriculum up to this point, and it is my hope that this was an oversight; it's also possible this wouldn't strike others who don't have children from different cultures and they would simply look at it as being from a different time. Because our family is multi-ethnic and also affected by disabilities, I may have stronger reactions to people groups being marginalized or spoken of badly. I never want my children to think it's ok to either speak of others or be spoken of this way.

I was loaned a RTR guide, and the only warning regarding the pages I mentioned was for page 17, for a "graphic description." I would (more gently this time) suggest giving parents a strong warning about those pages that do not reflect the views of the curriculum writers, noting that parents should be prepared to talk to their children about it.

[Aimee]

While I am not as upset as when I first posted, I would still love to hear Carrie's take on this; I think it's worth consideration.

[Carrie]

Aimee,

While I am currently in the middle of wrapping up our new catalog, working on getting the book descriptions and content for the new book for the website done, trying to find time to write the new guide, and homeschooling our 4 boys, I am going to stop and take time to address your concerns. This is because I feel it is very important for me to be able to articulate why we choose the books that we do and what role each book plays within our fuller curriculum.

One important thing to keep in mind when previewing books is that it is very important to read a book in its entirety in order to gain a true picture of the way that the child will be reading the book. With this particular title it is very important to read the book from the beginning as this is where the author lays the foundation for the telling of the history of the Middle Ages. As you read the flow of the story from the beginning you can see how the author is striving to show that all civilizations are united and come from a common starting place, one building upon another. He is showing which people groups were more "civilized" at the time of the Middle Ages and which were more "war-like". He goes into great detail about the civilizations' customs and culture and does not characterize them in only one sweeping sentence. The reason I share the beginning of the text is so that you can get a feel for the author's overall style and better understand his purpose for writing the text.

Quote from the text:

Boys and girls - and grown folks also - often turn first to the last chapter of a book, before reading it, to see how it "ends". At times this is a good idea; for when we know the end of the story, we can often better understand it as told. This then is what we will do in this book. We will first see what the "end" of the story of the Middle Ages is; then, as we read, we shall better understand how that end was brought about.

When Columbus in the year 1492 returned from his voyage of discovery, a keen rivalry began among the Old World nations for the possession of the New World. Expedition followed expedition; Spaniards, Portuguese, French, English, and later the Dutch and Swedes, - all began to strive with one another for the wealth and dominion of the newfound lands; and American history - our own history - begins.

But who were these Spaniards and Portuguese, these Englishmen and Frenchmen, these Dutchmen and Swedes? In the old days when the might and power of Rome ruled over the world, we hear nothing of them. Whence had they come? Were they entirely new peoples who had no part in the old world of the Greeks and Romans? Were they the descendents of the old people over whom the Emperors had ruled from the city of the Seven Hills? Or did they arise by a mingling of the old and the new? Then, if they were a result of the mingling, where had the new races dwelt during the long years that Rome was spreading her empire over the known world? When and how had the mingling taken place? What, too, had become of the "The Glory that was Greece, the grandeur that was Rome"? Why was America not discovered and settled before? What were the customs, the ideas, the institutions which these people brought with them when they settled here? In short, what had been the history and what was the condition of the nations which, after 1492, began the struggle for the mastery of the New World?

To such questions it is the aim of this book to give an answer. It will try to show how the power of Rome fell before the attacks of German barbarians, and how, in the long course of the Middle Ages, new peoples, new states, a new civilization, arose on the ruins of the old.

At the beginning of the period Rome was old and worn out with misgovernment and evil living. But planted in this dying Rome there was the new and vigorous Christian Church which was to draw up into itself all that was best and strongest of the old world. The Germans were rude and uncivilized but they were strong in mind and body, and possessed some ideas about government, women, and the family which were better than the ideas of the Romans on these subjects.

When the Germans conquered the Romans, and settled within the bounds of the Empire, it might well have seemed that the end of the world was come. Cities were plundered and destroyed; priceless works of art were dashed to pieces; and the inhabitants of many lands were slain or enslaved. For nearly a thousand years Europe did not entirely recover from the shock; and the period which immediately follows the invasions of the barbarians is so dreary and sad that historians have called it "the Dark Ages".

But what was best in the old Greek and Roman civilization did not wholly perish. The Christian Church, too, grew steadily stronger, and sought to soften and civilize the rude Germans. The Germans, in turn, did not lose their vigor or their good ideas. At last from the combination of all these elements a new civilization arose, - stronger, better, and capable of higher development than the old, - and the Middle Ages were past. Then and only then could - and did - the new nations, which meanwhile had slowly been forming, set out on their careers of discovery and exploration which have made our New World possible. (p. 1-3)

As you read the above text, you can see that the author is striving to show how the melting pot of civilizations mixed together to produce a civilization "capable of higher development" mixing together the best parts of each civilization. He is not showing one as being supreme to another but rather showing the progression of the various civilizations, each building upon the one that came before. He is also mentioning the pitfalls of the various civilizations and winding the spread of the Early Church into the history too. By doing this, He is showing God's sovereignty in the spread of nations and how history reflects this.

To address your concerns, I will now jump ahead to p. 11, to lead into the sentence that you mentioned on p. 12. As you read through the paragraphs that come before, you can see that the author is speaking mainly of the spread of the Church and Christianity when he speaks of the American Indian, rather than speaking summarily about their intelligence. He is speaking of God's sovereignty over the spread of the gospel with the Germans and of those people groups who embraced the gospel and took it to heart. He does also speak of the Germans ability to change and adapt and his statement has much to do with that quality in regards to the American Indian as well. In generalities, both of these statements are quite true as far as Native Americans go. They did not embrace the gospel of Christ as a people group, and as a group they did not seek to change and adapt when new people groups entered the land in which they were living.

Of course, there are exceptions to this generality, as in the missionary work of John Eliot to the Native Americans and in the forward-thinking Cherokee nation. However, the author is just looking at history as a whole. From my perspective of living in South Dakota, where we are steeped in Native American culture, surrounded by tribal reservations, and home to the Black Hills, I would agree we see very few Native American Christians today. The tribes also still have great difficulty changing or adapting to more modern ways and seek to remain as they always have been.

Quote from the text:
(Beginning on p. 11) At the period of which we are speaking, the Germans did not believe in one God as we do, but many. The names of some of their gods are preserved in the names which we have for the days of the week. From the god Tius comes Tuesday, form Woden comes Wednesday, and from Thor comes Thursday. Tius was the god of the heavens, and was at first the chief of the gods. Songs were sung in his honor, palaces named for him, and even human beings were sacrificed to him. Woden was afterward worshiped as the god of the sky, and also of the winds. Because he controlled the winds, it was natural that he should be the special god to whom these people looked who depended upon the sea; therefore he became the protector of sailors. He was also the god of war, and the spear was his emblem.

After the worship of Tius died out, Woden became the chief god of the Germans. To him also there were sacrifices of human beings. Next in importance to Woden was Thor, the god of thunder and also of the household. His emblem was the hammer. When it thundered the people said that Thor with his hammer was fighting the ice-giants; so he was regarded as the enemy of winter, and the giver of good crops.

Besides these chief gods, there were many less important ones. Among these were the spirits of the forests and rivers, and the "gnomes" or "dwarfs who dwelt in the earth, guarding the stores of precious metals and jewels which it contains. Long after the old religion had come to an end the descendants of the ancient Germans remembered these spirits, and stories of their tricks and good deeds were handed down from father to son. In this way the Germans kept something of the old religion in the beautiful fairy tales which we still love; and in our Christmas and Easter customs we find other traces of their old beliefs and customs.

When missionaries went among them, however, they became Christians. This shows one of the greatest abilities which they possessed. They were willing and able to learn from other peoples, and to change their customs to suit new circumstances. Other races, like the American Indians, who did not learn so readily, have declined and died away when they have been brought into contact with a higher civilization. But the Germans could learn from the Greeks and Romans; so they grew from a rude half-barbarous people, in to great and civilized nations. (p.12)

You can also see that even though the author calls the Germans "rude half-barbarous people", he has taken great pains in the sections I've quoted above to show their strengths and the positive qualities they had in spite of their war-like behavior. These qualities they kept as they let go of the more barbaric qualities. It is also important to note that when the author refers to "higher civilizations" or "civilized nations" he is referring to all of the people groups who were just coming out of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages and becoming more "civilized" and finally moving toward desiring to learn new things again. The Dark Ages were a time when few people could read and even the kings often couldn't write. Plagues and war wiped out much of the population and just getting by from day-to-day was a struggle. So, becoming more "civilized" was a signal that the Dark Ages and then the Middle Ages were coming to a close and the stage was set for new learning to take place all over the world. It is also important to note that this is the only discussion of native Americans in this text.

By reading the sentences you mentioned within the context of the fuller text, they take on a different meaning than when they are plucked out of context at random. Plus when shared within the activities that accompany the readings in the guide, an even fuller picture is provided.

While this post was very time-consuming for me to type out word by word, understanding the context of what is read is so important to me that I'll start one more post to address your concerns about the Huns, as I believe you cannot fully understand this issue without reading the fuller text.

Blessings,
Carrie

[Carrie]

Aimee,

It is so important to look at the context of the introduction to the Huns in this particular instance in order to really understand why they were so feared in the Middle Ages. The Huns were truly terrifying and were fierce warriors, wiping out entire cities and bringing kings and emperors to their knees. Previous to the coming of the Huns, the Goths had been the feared warriors by the Romans, and they were now becoming a bit less war-like and more "civilized" to the point where they feared more war-like tribes like the Huns. The characterization of the Huns in this text is no more an indictment on the Asian peoples than the characterization of the Norsemen, Slavs, Goths, and Vandals is an indictment of the European peoples. These are the warring tribes that eventually settled in these areas. So, in order to see the context that preceded the description of the Huns, I'll include the context below that leads into it.

Quote from text:
(p. 16) The greatest thing that the Goths learned from the Romans was Christianity. Litlle by little they ceased worshiping Thor and Woden, and became Christians. This was chiefly due to one of their own men named Ulfilas, who spent a number of years at Constantinople, the Roman capital of the world. There he became a Christian priest; and when he returned to his people he began to work as a missionary among them. Ulfilas had many difficulties to overcome in this work; but the chief one was that there was no Bible, or indeed any books, in the Gothic language. So Ulfilas set to work to translate the Bible from the Greek language into the Gothic. This was a hard task in itself; but it was made all the harder by the fact that before he could begin he had to invent an alphabet in which to write down the Gothic words. After the translation was made, too, he had to teach his people how to read it. In all this Ulfilas was successful; and under his wise and patient teaching the Goths rapidly became Christians. At the same time they were becoming more civilized, and their rulers were beginning to build up a great kingdom about the Danube and the Black Sea. Suddenly, however, an event happened which was to change all of their later history, and indeed the history of the world as well. This was the coming of the Huns into Europe.

The Huns were not members of the great Aryan family of nations; and indeed the Germans and the Romans thought that they were scarcely human at all. They were related to the Chinese, and their strange features and customs, and their shrill voices were new to Europe. An old Gothic warrior gives us a picture of them. "Nations whom they could never have defeated in a fair fight," he says, "fled in horror from thos frightful faces - if indeed, I may call them faces; for they are nothing but shapeless black pieces of flesh, with little points instead of eyes. They have no hair on their cheeks or chins. Instead, the sides of their faces show deep furrowed scars; for hot irons are applied, with characteristic ferocity, to the face of every boy that is born among them, so that the blood is drawn from his cheeks before he is allowed to taste his mother's milk. The men are little in size, but quick and active in their motions; and they are especially skillful in riding. They are broad-shouldered, are good at the use of the bow and arrows, have strong necks, and are always holding their heads high in their pride. To sum up, these beings under the forms of men hide the fierce natures of beasts."

The Goths were brave, but they could not stand against such men as these. The East-Goths who dwelt about the Black Sea, were soon conquered, and for nearly a century they continued to be subject to the Huns. The West-Goths, who dwelt in the Danube, fled in terror before the countless hordes of new-comers, and sought a refuge within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. As many as two hundred thousand fighting men, besides thousands of old men, women, and children gathered on the north bank of the Danube, and "stretching out their hands from afar, with loud lamentations," begged the Roman officers to permit them to cross the river and settle in the Roman lands. (p. 18)

As you read you get the idea of how destructive the Huns were as warriors and how changed the Roman Empire (and the lands surrounding it) were by the Huns coming. You also get the idea of how as children the Huns faces were intentionally disfigured through the use of hot irons. This certainly left an impression on those who fought against the Huns. Yet, the author still points out the Huns' strengths, even while listing their terrifying qualities.

It is also important to note (in the text above) that the author is not saying that only Aryans are "great", but rather he has just finished telling about the history of the "great Aryan family of nations" and where these nations came from and is now moving outside of that family of nations to tell about the coming of the Huns. This is why reading sentences within the context of the greater text makes a huge difference in understanding the text.

One last thing to remember is that whenever we read a text written about past history, it is important to note that in our quest to be politically correct we can actually be re-writing history. This history of the Middle Ages seeks to tell history as it really happened. I learned so much about the history of the Middle Ages as I read this text, and I pray that the same will be true for you and your children as you read the entire text too.

Blessings,
Carrie

[Aimee]

Carrie, thank you for your reply. I did see the context when I read all the sentences in the whole chapter, and I did notice, when I read it again, that the Huns were made to seem less than human in a number of ways, described as beasts.

I love history, and do not look for revisionist history - I don't like it. However, in parenting children who look different than me, and one who has a visible disability that attracts attention, perhaps I have a different point of view. I don't want to give my children (or anyone else's) a reason to feel "less than." There are other old texts that haven't revised history, which either never included, or have had edited out particularly unkind descriptions of people groups that are now familiar to us, or if they're included, the authors (or editors) are quick to point out that these were the views of the times. This text in no way indicated that this view was incorrect or unkind. In thinking this over again today, I realized that a simple statement in the IG could be enough to offset this, something like:

"Today your children will be reading a description of the Huns, as written by an old Gothic warrior. Please bear in mind that the Goths had likely never seen anyone of Asian descent, and what was unknown, was frightening - and the Huns were frightening in other ways too! Please be prepared to discuss this with your child."

Personally, I believe I will choose another book. I do hope those who read it will take the time to discuss it with their kiddos in light of a Godly way to refer to and treat people.

[Aimee]

Carrie, for some reason, I didn't see your first reply before I responded to the second. Thanks for taking the time to share these thoughts, it's interesting to read your thoughts on the matter, and thoughts about the Native American population near you. I'll read it again more thoroughly when dinner has been cooked, but wanted to let you know I've seen it and appreciate the replies.

[Carrie]

Aimee,

I do hope that you will get a chance to read both posts that I've shared above. As you read, I think it is important not to make leaps within a text that are not technically there. So it is important to keep in mind that the text is speaking of Hun warriors and not Asian children or any other children who may look a little different for some reason or another. There is a huge difference!

As you read, also bear in mind that the text will later go on to talk about Attila the Hun, as this was the time period in which he lived. Attila the Hun was actually nicknamed "the Scourge of God" for his war tactics. So, keep in mind that it wasn't Attila the Hun's ethnic background that made him feared by all, but rather it was his actions that sent terror into every man, woman, and child living during this time period. This is what I meant about looking at the context and understanding the historical time period about which something is written.

The Story of the Middle Ages is one of the spines used within RTR, so if you choose not to use the book the program will not work. If your family is more comfortable with a different approach, you will know best what curriculum to seek to fulfill that purpose. I wish you the Lord's best in your search.

Blessings,
Carrie

[Aimee]

I have read both posts, and while I appreciate your points, and the book offers much in the way of historical information (I have taught this time period before, BTW, so I am familiar with the subject matter), I think, for my family, there will be a better source. I think as parents we need to be aware of both wounded spirits and the potential for wounding, and use discernment in what we choose for our children. Your posts have helped clarify that for me, and I believe you're correct in that the program won't work if we change it too much. We've adapted CTC a great deal this year to meet our needs as CM educators, and would need to adapt two spines to do this next year, as MOH doesn't meet our qualifications for a living book. I appreciate the time you've put into the curriculum, and meant to bring forward a concern that might be an issue for other families as well as my own. May God bless you in your work.

[WildflowerMommy]

Hi Gals!

Had to weigh in on this one since I have two biracial European-Chinese kids and one adopted from China! I seek out lots of good cultural books and videos from the library and catalogs to go along with what we are studying with HOD. For example when we had HOD units on explorers, I taught them about Zheng He, who was a much more impressive explorer than Columbus but is not very well known here. Some think he may have discovered America before the Europeans! I like fitting in the extra info in with history so they understand it's not just about some extra holidays. It could work for any country- if your kid is from Guatemala and you're doing the middle ages with your main curriculum, find out what was going on there at the same time. And i think it's important to talk about the country's spiritual history as well. Not like you have to do it with each unit, who has that kind of time???but often enough so the kiddos get an appreciation and feel good about having some knowledge and connection.

Thank you for the heads up, because I will want to read the book in question along with my daughter, rather than have her independently. I think especially the part about the Native Americans could be misinterpreted by a child, so I will want to make sure she understands that one.

Blessings!

WildflowerMommy

DD-age 8 1/2, Finishing Bigger
DS-age 6 1/2, Beyond
DS-age 6, LHFHG